> On Mar 24, 2016, at 9:32 PM, Fred Baker (fred) <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> On Mar 24, 2016, at 4:34 PM, Chris Bowers <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> It seems to me that most use cases for ipv6 multi-homing with >> provider-assigned addresses only need to route based on source address when >> the destination prefix is the default route. So why not require that source >> prefixes can only be paired up with the default destination prefix ::/0? > > When what one has in mind is an egress route, that probably makes sense. > However, it precludes an entire class of use cases mentioned in the use case > draft. Why do that?
Let me give you an obvious variant. Imagine, if you will, that I have a PA prefix from each of N ISPs, and therefore a default route to each of N ISPs. Imagine also that I have a particular prefix that I would like to route through via a given one of those N ISPs, in the special case that I happen to have been smart enough to use that source prefix. So now I have N+1 source/destination routes - unless you tie it to default routes. A premature optimization usually breaks things...
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
